Trans Mech Systems Through Its Propritor Jalindar Pandurang Maghade vs Bhansali Agro Tech Advocate - Wagh Ranjit Bajirao — 1/2025
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 20 (C). Disposed: Uncontested--TRANSFERRED / MADE OVER on 07th March 2026.
Civil Suit
CNR: MHPU140025392025
e-Filing Number
26-11-2025
Filing Number
1043/2025
Filing Date
26-11-2025
Registration No
1/2025
Registration Date
26-11-2025
Court
Additional District Court, Baramati
Judge
16-District Judge -4 and Additional Sessions Judge, Baramati
Decision Date
07th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--TRANSFERRED / MADE OVER
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Trans Mech Systems Through Its Propritor Jalindar Pandurang Maghade
Adv. MALWADE JYOTSNA GANESH
Respondent(s)
Bhansali Agro Tech Advocate - Wagh Ranjit Bajirao
Hearing History
Judge: 16-District Judge -4 and Additional Sessions Judge, Baramati
Disposed
Order
Order
Arguments
Arguments
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 07-03-2026 | Disposed | |
| 06-03-2026 | Order | |
| 05-03-2026 | Order | |
| 02-02-2026 | Arguments | |
| 16-01-2026 | Arguments |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary The District Court of Baramati transferred the design piracy suit (Trans Mech Systems v. Bhansali Agro Tech) to the Bombay High Court under Section 22(4) of the Designs Act, 2000. The court held that once the defendant raised grounds under Section 19 of the Act challenging the validity of the plaintiff's five registered designs in its written statement and filed cancellation petitions before the Controller of Designs, the district court lost jurisdiction and was mandated to transfer the case. The court rejected the plaintiff's argument that it should examine the substantive merit of the defendant's invalidity claims before transferring. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
Summary The District Court of Baramati transferred the design piracy suit (Trans Mech Systems v. Bhansali Agro Tech) to the Bombay High Court under Section 22(4) of the Designs Act, 2000. The court held that once the defendant raised grounds under Section 19 of the Act challenging the validity of the plaintiff's five registered designs in its written statement and filed cancellation petitions before the Controller of Designs, the district court lost jurisdiction and was mandated to transfer the case. The court rejected the plaintiff's argument that it should examine the substantive merit of the defendant's invalidity claims before transferring. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts